221
Post by: Frazzled
All Hail Daddy Drone Slayer: Killer of Perv piloted Drones!
Flawless victory! Let this stand that Fathers will not go quietly into the night! That we will shoot down your pervy drones filming our daughters! And you too if we catch you!
http://www.wave3.com/story/30355558/drone-slayer-claims-victory-in-court
Drone Slayer' claims victory in court
BULLITT COUNTY, KY (WAVE) – The man who calls himself the "Drone Slayer" called a judge's decision a victory.
Bullitt County Judge Rebecca Ward on Monday dismissed the case against William H. Merideth, who admitted to shooting down a drone he said was hovering over his home last July.
"I think it’s credible testimony that his drone was hovering from anywhere, for two or three times over these people’s property, that it was an invasion of their privacy and that they had the right to shoot this drone," Ward told the courtroom. "And I’m going to dismiss his charge."
[PREVIOUS STORY: Drone owner calls shooter 'drone slayer']
The drone’s owner, David Boggs, appeared stunned with the ruling.
"I’m dumbfounded," he said. "I really am. I don’t think that the court looked at what really took place here."
Boggs contends his drone flew past Merideth’s home at more than 200 feet above it, and didn’t hover.
[PREVIOUS STORY: Man charged after shooting down drone]
"I just want him to do the right thing." Boggs said. "His neighbors, he knows, everybody knows that no way (were) we under 100-and-something feet. That never happened. And so if they said, then they’re not telling the truth."
Experts at UoL's Speed School of Engineering say get ready for more cases like this.
"People are maybe not quite sure of where the boundaries are while they're waiting for the law to catch up," Associate Professor of computer engineering and computer science Adrian Lauf said.
Lauf said bad press is pressuring drone manufacturers and the FAA to make the rules clear.
"If we practice more common sense, we probably wouldn't have as many shotguns shooting drones down, nor would we have people who feel threatened," he said.
Merideth also was facing a charge for firing his gun in a residential neighborhood. That charge was dismissed as well.
"I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it.
"I was being watched. It was an invasion of privacy and I just, I wouldn’t put up with it no more."
Boggs said he was with a group of people while flying the drone who would tell a different story if asked to testify. He has the opportunity to appeal his case in front of a grand jury. He said he’s eager for the chance.
"This is a victory for him today, I guess," Boggs said. "But it’s far from over."
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
So one guy said it was over 200 feet up, and the entire neighborhood ganged up on him and hurt his feelings. Riiiiigght. Go daddy drone slayer!!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Back in the good old days people who flew radio control model aircraft and helicopters had to join clubs and go and fly on remote commons and so on where they would not annoy local residents or conflict with real aircraft flight paths and the like.
The creation of easy to buy and use computerised drones has put this kind of mini aircraft into the hands of people who have not had the socialisation experience of an R/C enthusiast. Consequently they are flying them anywhere, without regard to everyone else's concerns.
IDK exactly what the law says about this situation, but I don't think most drone operators do either, except the ones with professional training and licences.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 timetowaste85 wrote:So one guy said it was over 200 feet up, and the entire neighborhood ganged up on him and hurt his feelings. Riiiiigght. Go daddy drone slayer!!
In case you forget, when this case first got noticed a lot of Meredith's neighbors were mentioning that he said he was going to shoot it down, no matter where/how high it was.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think it's very hard to form an opinion from the stories I've read. There is just too much conflicting information.
The drone operator claims he never flew below 200 feet. He provided a flight plan to back that up. There's no video of the flight in question.
The shooter claims it flew right over his property very low, and did so repeatedly. There are comments from the judge that seem to back that up, but it doesn't seem like everyone got to testify.
So, hard to call who was "right".
Ultimately, I think people who shoot firearms into the air over populated areas should be prosecuted under existing firearm laws (not to mention shooting at an aircraft is already a felony). If you're being harassed, you should call the police - a firearm is the last resort, and only should be employed when your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. Neither of those elements was present here.
70360
Post by: Col. Dash
If he hit it with a shotgun enough to do damage, it was closer than 200 feet. That's roughly 60 yards. I have been hit with a shotgun at that range and it was more like being peppered with hot rain.
This is good, drones are fun, but there needs to be some solid rules to protect privacy over private property. I don't have any reason to care but I would prefer them stay out of my yard's airspace.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Col. Dash wrote:This is good, drones are fun, but there needs to be some solid rules to protect privacy over private property. I don't have any reason to care but I would prefer them stay out of my yard's airspace.
The problem here is that "your yards airspace" is a bit of a legal gray area - you only own up to so high. Certainly, you don't own >500 above it (this is a tangent, not related to the case at hand) and you certainly DO own the developed part (to your roofline).
Truthfully, the only thing I'm here for are the people that will defend this guys right to defend his privacy with lethal force in this thread, while also claiming there is no right to privacy in abortion threads. I'm sure they will show up.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
I don't think the guy shot the drone so people wouldn't see him killing his baby.
84405
Post by: jhe90
200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.
what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.
I mean if i was a home owner and you dropped a drone on my car or hole in roof, im still going to be pretty pissed off even if it was spying on you yet alone hit a person or pet.
gravity plus mass = speed = impact force. people need to think where they drop a flying object
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think you missed my point on purpose.
 jhe90 wrote:200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.
what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.
The most popular consumer drone at that height weighs about 3 pounds (1.3kg).
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
I find it unlikely he could have hit it and knocked it down if it was over 200 feet up. Secondly, it was remiss of the police to hand back the drone without checking for footage given that criminal complaints were being made on both sides. That no footage could later be produced from the drone just seems unsatisfactory IMO.
I don't like the idea of someone firing guns into the air over their garden, that seems dangerous. But I don't find buzzing people's private property with drones acceptable either. Take them to the local park like the R/C plane people.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Howard A Treesong wrote:I find it unlikely he could have hit it and knocked it down if it was over 200 feet up. Secondly, it was remiss of the police to hand back the drone without checking for footage given that criminal complaints were being made on both sides. That no footage could later be produced from the drone just seems unsatisfactory IMO.
On the platforms in question, a sudden loss of power will typically render an unplayable file. There is third party software that can, sometimes, repair the corrupted file. If the drone owner had indeed been flying very low, then he has very little reason to try and recover incriminating footage.... or perhaps it simply was actually unrepairable. In any event, I agree, the sd card should have been held as evidence and analyzed.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Ouze wrote:I think it's very hard to form an opinion from the stories I've read. There is just too much conflicting information. The drone operator claims he never flew below 200 feet. He provided a flight plan to back that up. There's no video of the flight in question. The shooter claims it flew right over his property very low, and did so repeatedly. There are comments from the judge that seem to back that up, but it doesn't seem like everyone got to testify. So, hard to call who was "right". Ultimately, I think people who shoot firearms into the air over populated areas should be prosecuted under existing firearm laws (not to mention shooting at an aircraft is already a felony). If you're being harassed, you should call the police - a firearm is the last resort, and only should be employed when your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. Neither of those elements was present here.
Shooting a shotgun at a target 200 feet away with the scatter pattern of a normal shotgun would be very impressive. Impressive not in accuracy but any of the pellets actually hitting it. The drone operator was lying.  that guy. Now Dad needs to give the drone operator an attitude adjustment. Inversely the daughter should sue the drone operator.
12313
Post by: Ouze
It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
That is my issue, had the SD card been examined and found to be corrupted then the owner would be clear of any wrongdoing in that regard. As it is, you can't help but feel suspicious that evidence he potentially could have supplied had disappeared.
121
Post by: Relapse
Based off the light shot that was used I called bs on the drone being 200 feet up when it was downed. I am surprised the guy didn't get busted for discharging a fire arm in town limits.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
I'm sayign its highly unlikely a single pellet would have made it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Frazzled wrote: Ouze wrote:It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
I'm sayign its highly unlikely a single pellet would have made it.
So you admit it's possible  Certainly, the NRA guidelines requiring a shotgun range to be 300 yards is for a reason - and we're talking about a fifth of that range.
We don't know, and we're not going to know. The drone operator has incentive to lie about how high he was, and the shooter has incentive to lie about whether or not he was shooting birdshot or buckshot; the latter of which would have gone much farther and would have possibly stuck him with a reckless discharge count he couldn't get out of.
18698
Post by: kronk
Ouze wrote:I think it's very hard to form an opinion from the stories I've read. There is just too much conflicting information.
The drone operator claims he never flew below 200 feet. He provided a flight plan to back that up. There's no video of the flight in question.
The shooter claims it flew right over his property very low, and did so repeatedly. There are comments from the judge that seem to back that up, but it doesn't seem like everyone got to testify.
So, hard to call who was "right".
Ultimately, I think people who shoot firearms into the air over populated areas should be prosecuted under existing firearm laws (not to mention shooting at an aircraft is already a felony). If you're being harassed, you should call the police - a firearm is the last resort, and only should be employed when your life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury. Neither of those elements was present here.
Agreed on the "he said, she said". I would have liked for the testimony of the other neighbors, even just to settle my own curiosity.
On the police part, the shooter did say:
"I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it.
Maybe that's BS and he never called, or maybe they told him to F Off. Dunno.
Ticket the guy for discharging a firearm, ticket the other guy for flying over dude one's house after being told to stop.
Seriously, go fly your drone in a field and leave people alone.
Tickets to everyone!
21196
Post by: agnosto
Personal airspace is up to judges to decide but precedence is currently 500 feet and down is yours.
Today, the federal government considers the area above 500 feet to be navigable airspace in uncongested areas. While the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly accepted that as the upper limit of property ownership, it’s a useful guideline in trespass cases. Therefore, unless you own some very tall buildings, your private airspace probably ends somewhere between 80 and 500 feet above the ground.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/photographer_george_steinmetz_arrest_how_much_airspace_do_you_own.html
The right to enjoy your property's airspace goes back to a 1946 SCOTUS decision in US vs Causby:
Held:
1. A servitude has been imposed upon the land for which respondents are entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-267.
(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.
(b) The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261, 328 U. S. 266.
(c) Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain, even though they are within the path of glide approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pp. 328 U. S. 263-264.
(d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267.
So navigable airspace is currently defined by the FAA as 500 feet plus, under that, you have an arguable right to enjoy your property without fear that someone's going to come and snoop on you. Look at "(d)"; SCOTUS has stated that low and frequent flying is the same as walking onto someone's property without an invitation.
Cheers to this dad, I'd buy him a beer and I would do the same thing if I were him.
Having fired multiple shotguns using a variety of ammunition , only a solid slug could have done enough damage at 200 feet and a moving target is damn hard to hit with a solid slug unless he's skeet shooting champ of KY which lends credence to either it being below 200 feet and/or hovering over the man's property. Gravity doesn't help. Most effective ranges for ammunition are about 40-50 yards, factor in shooting straight up (or even at an angle) and shot will lose velocity and trajectory quickly.
Edit:
Agree that it's never a good idea to discharge a firearm over a populated area.
18698
Post by: kronk
I love this sentence so much.
"(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261. "
Thanks!
21196
Post by: agnosto
 kronk wrote:I love this sentence so much.
"(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261. "
Thanks!
Yeah, I had to read that one twice. Funny thing is that it was common held belief for a long time. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
So you admit it's possible Certainly, the NRA guidelines requiring a shotgun range to be 300 yards is for a reason - and we're talking about a fifth of that range.
Sure its possible. Its also possible I'm really Selma Hayak and am going to win the Megamillions Lotto.
icket the guy for discharging a firearm, ticket the other guy for flying over dude one's house after being told to stop.
Seriously, go fly your drone in a field and leave people alone.
Tickets to everyone!
This is fair.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Whoa whoa whoa!
Col. Dash wrote:If he hit it with a shotgun enough to do damage, it was closer than 200 feet. That's roughly 60 yards. I have been hit with a shotgun at that range and it was more like being peppered with hot rain.
This is good, drones are fun, but there needs to be some solid rules to protect privacy over private property. I don't have any reason to care but I would prefer them stay out of my yard's airspace.
So, were you breaking 'privacy over private property' rules the Old Fashioned way there Tom? 
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
"Bullitt County"
I knew you guys loved your guns, but naming a county that...that's just fething ridiculous
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
So you admit it's possible Certainly, the NRA guidelines requiring a shotgun range to be 300 yards is for a reason - and we're talking about a fifth of that range.
Thats because safety regulations always go way beyond the minimum. Plus said Shotgun range might be shooting deer slugs or buck shot, not just Bird shot. If a range for only bird shot was built it could be way shorter.
Ouze wrote:It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
At 200 feet I doubt the pellets in a shotgun would do any damage at all. Given that at that range they're not even going to break human skin, or even leave an appreciable bruise.
And even if its still possible, the probability of any of the shot hitting is almost non-existent.
49806
Post by: yellowfever
I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Kanluwen wrote:yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
And if that was the case then he should not have been over anyone else's property while doing so.
And maybe he needs to rethink his business if the operation of his drone over other residences can lead to criminal charges.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Grey Templar wrote: Kanluwen wrote:yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
And if that was the case then he should not have been over anyone else's property while doing so.
If you're trying to get aerial photos of a property, you don't just hover directly over it. You move out into the street to get front shots, you might hover a bit into someone else's backyard to get shots of the rear of the house, etc.
And maybe he needs to rethink his business if the operation of his drone over other residences can lead to criminal charges.
And maybe this judge shouldn't have done such a shoddy job and just dismissed the charges, because clearly something doesn't add up.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Kanluwen wrote:yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
The only way this would be excusable then is if it was the defendant's neighbor as there's no reason to fly the drone through a neighborhood when you can park out front of the house and do it...if it was his neighbor, he obviously wasn't flying 200+ feet as he claims to take photos of a house meant for sale. Yeah, BS on that explanation.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote:It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
At 200 feet I doubt the pellets in a shotgun would do any damage at all. Given that at that range they're not even going to break human skin, or even leave an appreciable bruise.
You literally quoted the line where I explained why and how pellets could damage, and still managed to shrug it off.
00 Buckshot will penetrate ballistic gelatin between 12 and 16 inches at 50 yards, which is fairly close to the 60 yards this drone may or may not have been flying at. The idea that it wouldn't break human skin is not a reality-based idea.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Wait, 200ft is your Airspace? I find that Dubious.
Im with the drone operater here TBH. The fact that the father was so quick to shoot it down, discharging a gun on his property and disobeying the law and damage someones property, speaks to me he might be in the wrong.
But really, it is a Hesaid She said. Do we have proof he used buckshot beyond his word?
12313
Post by: Ouze
There is no proof of virtually anything involving this story. It's almost all supposition.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote:It takes very little force to take down a quadcopter: a single pellet cracking a single propeller would do it. A steel pellet simply coming into contact with a high-speed prop at any velocity would probably be adequate - they are delicate machines.
At 200 feet I doubt the pellets in a shotgun would do any damage at all. Given that at that range they're not even going to break human skin, or even leave an appreciable bruise.
You literally quoted the line where I explained why and how pellets could damage, and still managed to shrug it off.
00 Buckshot will penetrate ballistic gelatin between 12 and 16 inches at 50 yards, which is fairly close to the 60 yards this drone may or may not have been flying at. The idea that it wouldn't break human skin is not a reality-based idea.
The ammo type in this case was Bird shot. Sure, Buckshot will penetrate skin at 50 yards, bird shot most definitely will not.
Kanluwen wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Kanluwen wrote:yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
And if that was the case then he should not have been over anyone else's property while doing so.
If you're trying to get aerial photos of a property, you don't just hover directly over it. You move out into the street to get front shots, you might hover a bit into someone else's backyard to get shots of the rear of the house, etc.
So if I have been hired to do photographs with a normal camera I have free reign to walk into the neighboring yards to take the photos if the shot needed requires that angle?
Yeah, thats not the case. Why should it be different for aerial photography?
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:"Bullitt County"
I knew you guys loved your guns, but naming a county that...that's just fething ridiculous
Thats nothing Try Bulleit Bourbon. Now thats awesome. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:yellowfever wrote:I agree with what has already been mentioned. If your going to fly one fly the damn thing away from people's houses. Think people.
From what was said in the original thread, the pilot of the drone was asked by someone to take photographs for someone wanting to sell their house.
Yes thats his story. Not sure how that relates to him hovering over the teenage girls sunning themselves.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:The ammo type in this case was Bird shot. Sure, Buckshot will penetrate skin at 50 yards, bird shot most definitely will not.
I've already explained, in this thread, why the shooter had a strong incentive to lie about the ammunition he used (just as the operator had a strong incentive to lie about his height), just as I've explained that even birdshot would be able to down a quadcopter. I can type it, but I can't make you understand it.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ok fine, Bird shot could down the drone. Now explain how the guy made the bajillion to 1 shot to down the drone from 200 feet?
No matter what ammo he used, at 200 feet the odds of him downing the drone are some number approaching zero. Even if the drone was totally stationary.
37231
Post by: d-usa
A single pellet that manages to enter into one of the four rotors is all it takes, and it doesn't really matter how fast the pellet is traveling at that point. The damage wouldn't be caused by a high velocity object striking the propeller, the damage would be caused by a high speed propeller blade striking the object. The pellet being slow would actually increase the time it takes to pass through the blades and make it more likely that it will be struck.
A swallow that is sucked into an airplane engine doesn't damage the engine because it had a high air speed velocity, it damages the engine because the fast spinning blades hit the swallow. We could argue all day if there would be a difference between striking a European swallow or an African swallow, but it wouldn't make a difference because the damage is caused by the speed of the engine.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
18698
Post by: kronk
Frazzled wrote: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:"Bullitt County" I knew you guys loved your guns, but naming a county that...that's just fething ridiculous
Thats nothing Try Bulleit Bourbon. Now thats awesome.
It's not bad. I thought Bullitt sounded familiar.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Grey Templar wrote:Ok fine, Bird shot could down the drone. Now explain how the guy made the bajillion to 1 shot to down the drone from 200 feet?
No matter what ammo he used, at 200 feet the odds of him downing the drone are some number approaching zero. Even if the drone was totally stationary.
Depending upon the load and if it was birdshot or buck, it's possible. Buckshot being way, way more possible than bird because the spread on bird at that distance is laughable and the shot being so much lighter that it would be affected by gravity so much more, I'm not sure that bird could make it 200 feet into the air; gravity's a b. Max range, not even lethal, for #8 is about 150yards with all shot having dropped at that point and most of it dropping before.
You can find examples on youtube of people shooting buck with some reasonable accuracy at 55-60 yards but the spread on 00 and 000 is 27 inches or more at that range, shooting level at a ground target. Shooting at an aerial target.... Buck's generally heavier than bird (which is designed to be shot into the air) so gravity would have a bigger effect and larger shot being more effected by drag to slow them. Maybe 200ft with buck but again, he'd have to be an insane shot or lucky because the spread would be huge.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thread win right there.
18698
Post by: kronk
Came to this thread for shotguns and drones, left thirsty.
Thanks, Dakka!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Our work here is done.
Don't forget, try Knob Creek or TX if you like Bulleit. TX is made in Texas. Automatically Appended Next Post:  hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
I'd believe the dad over the Perv.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.
The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote:Our work here is done.
Don't forget, try Knob Creek or TX if you like Bulleit. TX is made in Texas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
I'd believe the dad over the Perv.
Again, what proof do you have he was a perv? Did you see the video? did people see the camera pointing at the two young women?
18698
Post by: kronk
I need video evidence of the bikinis in question.
For reasons.
But not if they're under 18.
That would be pervy.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Grey Templar wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.
The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.
The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.
Derp, no. Just because a range has a distance doesn't mean he's hitting shots at that distance.
As the duty of evidence is on the prosecution NOT the defendant, its up to you to prove your accusations. Clearly Da Judge thought the prosecution and the "victim" was full of it. Automatically Appended Next Post: kronk wrote:I need video evidence of the bikinis in question.
For reasons.
But not if they're under 18.
That would be pervy.
indeed.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Grey Templar wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote: Frazzled wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Still doesn't account for the insane probability of hitting it. Which means the Drone was almost certainly not at 200 feet. Occams Razor and all that.
Exactly. The pilot was a perv. He should be sentenced to a spank machine from the entire block, then forced to watch every episode of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.
.
Or, the Father was lying. The police gave the drone right back to the pilot. No examining, nothing. So we have no proof beyond the word of the father that Birdshot was used.
The police contaminated evidence by giving it back to the owner before the investigation was complete. We have no proof the drone owner was flying at 200 feet or any evidence exonerating him.
The only thing we have is that the drone was shot down with a shotgun. The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
I have seen people(My family included) hit things with a shotgun from pretty far away. Heck, my cousin regularly takes me to the range that is 300ft and hits stuff with his shotgun.
Derp, no. Just because a range has a distance doesn't mean he's hitting shots at that distance.
As the duty of evidence is on the prosecution NOT the defendant, its up to you to prove your accusations. Clearly Da Judge thought the prosecution and the "victim" was full of it.
.
Did you not read my sentence. He regularly hits at the range.
And again, The Father shot a weapon withing city limits, he should be prosecuted.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Grey Templar wrote:The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
That's not how the law works.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
He hits a stationary target on a level field. I imagine if the target was moving and 200 feet up in the air he wouldn't hit jack squat.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 BlaxicanX wrote: Grey Templar wrote:The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
That's not how the law works.
it is if you are the defendant.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Just wait until folks start making or buying these:  Drones gonna be falling like rain. we employed a new tool that we had developed just weeks before the expo: the Cyber Capability Rifle. Successfully able to remotely disable an overhead UAV, we developed this proof-of-concept device in a dusty backyard garage, as amateur engineers and do-it-yourselfers, in about 10 hours with about $150 of spare parts.
http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/it-is-time-for-the-u-s-military-to-innovate-like-insurgents/  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a17802/cyber-capability-rifle-ausa-2015-demo/
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
How does that work?
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Without any actual reading probably a focused emp of some sort. But I'm not that interested.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
BlaxicanX wrote: Grey Templar wrote:The probabilities say that the drone would have to be pretty close, well less than 200 feet, to get shot down with the weapon that was used. Therefore the evidence supports the father's narrative.
That's not how the law works.
Thats exactly how the law works. Reasonable doubt. There is very much reasonable doubt that the drone was not flying at 200 feet because of the near impossibility of it being disabled by a shotgun at that range.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
The 'barrel' looks like an antenna. I presume it pumps out a radio signal that interferes with the drone's control signal, or maybe is even powerful enough to disrupt the onboard computer.
84405
Post by: jhe90
Ouze wrote:
I think you missed my point on purpose.
jhe90 wrote:200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.
what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.
The most popular consumer drone at that height weighs about 3 pounds (1.3kg).
1.3 kg is still not "light" drop that 200 feet and its going have some force, not like a 1kg steel weight but still carry some energy into any crash.
still do some damage.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.
Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Further, the prosecution has no evidence his story is inaccurate. There for in a criminal case-suck it drone pervs!
Am I the only one thinking there's money in drone pest control extermination business. (images of model F 15s firing tiny sidewinders while playing "Highway to the Danger Zone" from tiny speakers)
121
Post by: Relapse
jhe90 wrote: Ouze wrote:
I think you missed my point on purpose.
jhe90 wrote:200 feet up, has to be a pretty powerful drone + a fair mass.
what goes up must come down, granted privacy and all but when you send up to several kilo's falling down its velocity plus mass = impact force which could be fairly powerful and risk to people and property.
The most popular consumer drone at that height weighs about 3 pounds (1.3kg).
1.3 kg is still not "light" drop that 200 feet and its going have some force, not like a 1kg steel weight but still carry some energy into any crash.
still do some damage.
Is it shaped like a pine cone?
12313
Post by: Ouze
timetowaste85 wrote:Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.
Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.
That, or he was actually using buckshot; which he wouldn't want to admit to using because he might be looking at a gun charge that he couldn't get out of - as has been explained several times. It's not rare for someone to kill a deer with buckshot at 50 yards with a proper choke (thought you should be using slugs that far); so pretending this is some miracle blind free throw shot from 100 yards away is either intellectual dishonesty, or you don't know enough about firearms. The idea that a shotgun kept by a door for home defense might be loaded with buckshot rather than birdshot is actually the most likely scenario, not a bermuda triangle tin foil hat theory.
Ultimately we don't know what happened, we're probably never going to know what happened, and the charges should not have been dismissed. The next time there's a mass shooting, and people call for new gun laws, and then the inevitable counter argument is that we need to enforce laws on the books: remember this case. This is a guy who fired a gun intro the air in a residential area where shooting is forbidden except for self defense, there is zero ambiguity that both he did shoot, and it was not in self-defense but rather "defending privacy", and the charges were dropped without a trial. If you think that's OK, i don't know what to say to that. Maybe the facts are a slam dunk for the shooter should it have gone to discovery, and maybe not, but we're never going to know, and that's nothing to cheer about.
21196
Post by: agnosto
If a drone falls in a forest and no one hears it crash, was it still a drone?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: timetowaste85 wrote:Maybe the judge just understood physics better than some of the people in this thread. Birdshot with an accuracy rating and penetration power at the velocity to make it 200 meters=crap to take down a drone. The odds of successfully downing a drone at that range with birdshot are 3,720 to 1.
Dad's story is simply more likely than the drone owner's. Despite what the more argumentative posters on here want to believe.
That, or he was actually using buckshot; which he wouldn't want to admit to using because he might be looking at a gun charge that he couldn't get out of - as has been explained several times. It's not rare for someone to kill a deer with buckshot at 50 yards with a proper choke (thought you should be using slugs that far); so pretending this is some miracle blind free throw shot from 100 yards away is either intellectual dishonesty, or you don't know enough about firearms. The idea that a shotgun kept by a door for home defense might be loaded with buckshot rather than birdshot is actually the most likely scenario, not a bermuda triangle tin foil hat theory.
Ultimately we don't know what happened, we're probably never going to know what happened, and the charges should not have been dismissed. The next time there's a mass shooting, and people call for new gun laws, and then the inevitable counter argument is that we need to enforce laws on the books: remember this case. This is a guy who fired a gun intro the air in a residential area where shooting is forbidden except for self defense, there is zero ambiguity that both he did shoot, and it was not in self-defense but rather "defending privacy", and the charges were dropped without a trial. If you think that's OK, i don't know what to say to that. Maybe the facts are a slam dunk for the shooter should it have gone to discovery, and maybe not, but we're never going to know, and that's nothing to cheer about.
Even with buckshot, the chances of hitting would be minuscule. Thus the drone owner is almost certainly lying.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I can show you tons of videos and links, but at the end of the day, I can't argue with someone who thinks it's nearly impossible to hit something the size of a garbage can lid with a single pellet with several shots at 200 feet. No amount of evidence is going to trump your feelings.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Can they do it when the garbage can is moving and 200 feet in the air with no reference points? This isn't shooting in a controlled environment.
12313
Post by: Ouze
We don't know if it was moving or hovering.
And, for the record, it's just as likely the shooter was telling the truth, and it was hovering right over his property. We don't know. It's very frustrating this case got dismissed for no legitimate reason, because on either side of the argument there are important precedents.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
'Hovering'' doesn't meant its completely still. You would never have a flying device be completely still. There would still be quite a bit of movement.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:'Hovering'' doesn't meant its completely still. You would never have a flying device be completely still. There would still be quite a bit of movement.
Yeah, you really don't know what you're talking about, at all. A consumer drone can most certainly be very nearly completely still in flight. With the most popular drone at that price point, that is in fact the default behavior - take your hands off the controls, it just stays still, unless there is high wind.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Are you also assuming there is no wind?
Really, you are making tons and tons of assumptions to fit the narrative that the drone was operating at 200 feet. Very few are needed for it to be lower.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:Are you also assuming there is no wind?
Really, you are making tons and tons of assumptions to fit the narrative that the drone was operating at 200 feet. Very few are needed for it to be lower.
Of course I'm assuming there wasn't strong wind, because that's the most reasonable assumption. A consumer drone at that price point is hard to handle in wind >15MPH. Therefore, the fact he was flying it at all indicates there was very little wind.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
It still doesn't make hitting the drone at 200 feet at all close to likely. The evidence all points to the dorone most likely being far closer to the ground. Especially since the drone was returned to the owner and the video footage was "lost''.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Like I said, no amount of evidence is going to trump your feelings; and more the fool I for knowing that full well and still going this far.
There's virtually no "evidence" at all thusfar presented, save for the flight plan the drone operator provided, which may or may not be accurate. It was never examined by anyone other than showing it to a few reporters.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Sure, just go ahead and cry ''you just uaz feelinzzs, ur ignoring the factz!!"
You are the one ignoring facts. Its very very unlikely that he could have disabled the drone at the alleged distance, the footage from the camera was returned to the owner and thus contaminated(most likely destroyed), and it just makes more sense all around.
Really its a far more likely story that the drone was flying around close to the ground, and the owner destroyed any footage the camera had to prevent it from incriminating him because the police botched it up and released evidence. I have no idea if the peeping tom assertions are true but that's not important.
47598
Post by: motyak
"You're ignoring facts"
"No you're ignoring facts"
"No you're ignoring facts"
"ur ignoring the factz!!"
"No you"
"No you"
Come on guys. Just let it die. All you're doing is going back and forth with the exact same thing, and now with the mocking tone and intentional misspelling happening I'm calling an end to it.
92803
Post by: ZergSmasher
Frazzled wrote:Further, the prosecution has no evidence his story is inaccurate. There for in a criminal case-suck it drone pervs!
Am I the only one thinking there's money in drone pest control extermination business. (images of model F 15s firing tiny sidewinders while playing "Highway to the Danger Zone" from tiny speakers)
That would be so awesome! Exalted!
Relapse wrote:
Is it shaped like a pine cone?
Lol I saw what you did there! Exalted!
49806
Post by: yellowfever
Does anyone here shoot trap. I don't know about damage potential but where I go the clays go in all kinds of directions. I was nailing them just using a regular rem 870 with a pistol grip. The thrower is 27 yards away. So average shot is around fifty yards. I'm a good shot but I'm not great. 200 feet is only 66 yards. Not real far. And yes I know it's shooting in the air but at only 66 yards it's not going to affect POI that much. But like I said as far as damage causing potential I'm not sure.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I shoot trap, yes. Poorly.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
I am sorely tempted to get a whole swarm of drones and park then 501 feet over this guys house.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Grey Templar wrote:Can they do it when the garbage can is moving and 200 feet in the air with no reference points? This isn't shooting in a controlled environment.
Exactly.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Glad I'm not the only one..badly that is.
But skeet (or trap) shooting uses a defined arc that may be at some distance but is still relatively flat with the horizon. The same skills that serve in skeet also are used in bird hunting.; you're shooting downrange at a target that is relatively low on the horizon. Now imagine a target 200 feet up, over your property; the drone did land on his property so it had to have either been over his property or flying toward it, unless he's a rarity and owns acreage in a residential community. Bird shot would not make it 200 feet up unless he's doing some custom loads that could result in blowing the whole rig in his face. That leaves buckshot if we're going to assume 200 feet is accurate/true. He could do it with buckshot but he'd have to be a darn good shot with an average 27 inch spread and most of the shot not making it that far (not all the shot makes it to target even on ground targets, contrary to what some people may think).
Honestly, I like to err on the side of caution when forming an opinion about this kind of stuff and just say that they're both lying. I think 200 feet up (not out and slightly up) is a hard shot even for an expert if it was a moving target, if it wasn't moving, it was hovering over the guy's property in airspace defined by SCOTUS as belonging to him. If it was moving and he hit it, I'd reasonably say it was much lower than 200 feet.
My 2 cents.
62229
Post by: Minx
Was there anyone else around when he shot the drone?
If yes, i am glad no one got hurt. A damaged drone spiraling out of control can follow quite an erratic flight path.
70360
Post by: Col. Dash
Another point that has been brought up, is shooting in his yard even illegal? Where I live many of us have gun ranges in our yards and its perfectly legal for us to shoot. I do 400" shots all the time with a loud 7.62 and think nothing of it. One of my friends has his class 3 license and goes full auto with a WW2 30cal. State Law allows it and no city is allowed to restrict back yard shooting, This place sounds like its out in the country, or that was the impression I got and it very possibly has similar laws.
On a side note, you skeet shooters should try marsh hen hunting. Kind of like skeet shooting, except you are standing on the bow of a moving boat shooting at a bird that pops up at random, flies extremely quickly and will dodge and dive back under water to pop up somewhere else. And its frikkin' cold and usually windy. And it tastes like chicken. That's fun.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Col. Dash wrote:Another point that has been brought up, is shooting in his yard even illegal? Where I live many of us have gun ranges in our yards and its perfectly legal for us to shoot. I do 400" shots all the time with a loud 7.62 and think nothing of it. One of my friends has his class 3 license and goes full auto with a WW2 30cal. State Law allows it and no city is allowed to restrict back yard shooting, This place sounds like its out in the country, or that was the impression I got and it very possibly has similar laws.
On a side note, you skeet shooters should try marsh hen hunting. Kind of like skeet shooting, except you are standing on the bow of a moving boat shooting at a bird that pops up at random, flies extremely quickly and will dodge and dive back under water to pop up somewhere else. And its frikkin' cold and usually windy. And it tastes like chicken. That's fun.
Nope, not legal. I think he was even charged with discharging a firearm in city limits. The thing is though that a judge can throw that charge out if she/he feels that the owner was justified in his actions (kind of like self-defense) and no other person was injured/property damaged.
I suck at skeet and bird hunting, there's no way I could hit one of those hens.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I doubt either the operator nor Droneslayer even know what altitude it had attained.
Drones come in all sizes and would be impossible to identify against the sky. The shotgun doesn't have a laser rangefinder, and the drone doesn't have an altimeter.
It's more or less guesstimation by either of them how high it was, and the ballistics of the shotgun round are the best physical evidence.
18698
Post by: kronk
At any point has the guy come forward with the drone in question to show the gunshot damage?
Scenario 1: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky buck shot at high (>200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.
Scenario 2: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky bird shot at low (<200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.
If the owner hasn't shown evidence of the drone's damage, I can't come up with a scenario where the drone owner doesn't comes forward with the evidence of the damage that doesn't involve him being a pervert.
Help?
10920
Post by: Goliath
 agnosto wrote:Buckshot being way, way more possible than bird because the spread on bird at that distance is laughable and the shot being so much lighter that it would be affected by gravity so much more, I'm not sure that bird could make it 200 feet into the air; gravity's a b. Max range, not even lethal, for #8 is about 150yards with all shot having dropped at that point and most of it dropping before.
You can find examples on youtube of people shooting buck with some reasonable accuracy at 55-60 yards but the spread on 00 and 000 is 27 inches or more at that range, shooting level at a ground target. Shooting at an aerial target.... Buck's generally heavier than bird (which is designed to be shot into the air) so gravity would have a bigger effect and larger shot being more effected by drag to slow them. Maybe 200ft with buck but again, he'd have to be an insane shot or lucky because the spread would be huge.
I've highlighted some parts. That isn't how gravity works. The weight of the shot would have nothing to do with the effect gravity would have upon it. The gauge of the shot may have an effect on max height, but that's more likely to be due to air resistance effects or initial velocity, it isn't due to gravity.
12313
Post by: Ouze
 Kilkrazy wrote:I doubt either the operator nor Droneslayer even know what altitude it had attained.
Drones come in all sizes and would be impossible to identify against the sky. The shotgun doesn't have a laser rangefinder, and the drone doesn't have an altimeter.
It's more or less guesstimation by either of them how high it was, and the ballistics of the shotgun round are the best physical evidence.
The news footage showed that he was flying a DJI Phantom 3, which does have an altimer, and the display on the controller shows exactly what the altitude is, along with other useful stats.
There are a lot of people posting here that frankly do not know what they are talking about.
221
Post by: Frazzled
kronk wrote:At any point has the guy come forward with the drone in question to show the gunshot damage?
Scenario 1: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky buck shot at high (>200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.
Scenario 2: Drone operator had custody of the drone immediately after the incident due to gakky police work. If it had been hit by lucky bird shot at low (<200 ft altitude), he could have shown evidence, but that evidence might also revealed the guy was a pervert and had a camera mount on the drone with pictures of 14 year olds girls sunbathing.
If the owner hasn't shown evidence of the drone's damage, I can't come up with a scenario where the drone owner doesn't comes forward with the evidence of the damage that doesn't involve him being a pervert.
Help?
I get you but once the evidence was given back to him, the chain of custody was broken and that evidence is tainted and likely inadmissable with a competent defense attorney. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Ouze wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:I doubt either the operator nor Droneslayer even know what altitude it had attained.
Drones come in all sizes and would be impossible to identify against the sky. The shotgun doesn't have a laser rangefinder, and the drone doesn't have an altimeter.
It's more or less guesstimation by either of them how high it was, and the ballistics of the shotgun round are the best physical evidence.
The news footage showed that he was flying a DJI Phantom 3, which does have an altimer, and the display on the controller shows exactly what the altitude is, along with other useful stats.
There are a lot of people posting here that frankly do not know what they are talking about.
And none of that is admissable if police blew the chain of custody.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.
I hear you. However that evidence was not raised. Him saying it is just him saying it. Absent other proof (the altimeter reading recorded) its merit is meh given the circumstances.
18698
Post by: kronk
Ouze wrote:Yes, but now we are having a new discussion. I was pointing out the idea that the drone in question did not have an altimeter and that the operator was guessing at the height was factually incorrect.
That's a cool picture.
12313
Post by: Ouze
That evidence wasn't raised because the drone operator was not given a chance to produce any evidence, since the charges were dismissed out of hand. Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll draw all over it if you like.
18698
Post by: kronk
Draw some flying assault butts attacking the boats!
gak, I need to paint mine. I got it right after my move when my painting gak was still packed away...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:That evidence wasn't raised because the drone operator was not given a chance to produce any evidence, since the charges were dismissed out of hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll draw all over it if you like.
Of course it was. The chain of custody was broken. No fruit from the rotten tree my dear Watson.
Draw some flying assault butts attacking the boats!
This post is made of WIN.
12313
Post by: Ouze
These are the controls the drone operator would see.
Starting at the top left:
Flight mode - you can do totally manual (no one does this), totally GPS - in which case GPS & the altimeter keep it stationary in height and position - or ATTI, which toggles off horizontal correct but uses the altimeter to keep the height steady. You'd usually use pure GPS, but if you need some more speed you can switch to ATTI.
Total GPS sats - the phantom 3 uses both GPS and Glonass to fix position. You need at least 7 to fly.
Status - self explanatory. This will change colors if there is a problem.
Signal strength, battery - self explanatory.
one clicks - there is a button to take straight up and hold at x height, and one to return to home from wherever it is and land where it took off. Normally, it will fly to at least x high (default is 60 meters), fly directly to the location it took off, and slowly descend (fast descents can cause a vortex ring).
Height in meters, obvious. horizontal distance is how far from the controller on a flat plane. HS is horizontal speed (obvious), the VS is if you are climbing or descending, and the last one is the (total) distance from takeoff, which includes the height and distance.
So, yes, he knew exactly how high he was, and where he was. These are precise machines. The software app on the previous version was capable of wholly autonomous flight via a PC or IOS app you'd use to plan it beforehand, it would literally take off, fly your waypoints, take stills, whatever, and return back to wherever you told it to with a single button press and no other intervention.
21196
Post by: agnosto
 Goliath wrote: agnosto wrote:Buckshot being way, way more possible than bird because the spread on bird at that distance is laughable and the shot being so much lighter that it would be affected by gravity so much more, I'm not sure that bird could make it 200 feet into the air; gravity's a b. Max range, not even lethal, for #8 is about 150yards with all shot having dropped at that point and most of it dropping before.
You can find examples on youtube of people shooting buck with some reasonable accuracy at 55-60 yards but the spread on 00 and 000 is 27 inches or more at that range, shooting level at a ground target. Shooting at an aerial target.... Buck's generally heavier than bird (which is designed to be shot into the air) so gravity would have a bigger effect and larger shot being more effected by drag to slow them. Maybe 200ft with buck but again, he'd have to be an insane shot or lucky because the spread would be huge.
I've highlighted some parts. That isn't how gravity works. The weight of the shot would have nothing to do with the effect gravity would have upon it. The gauge of the shot may have an effect on max height, but that's more likely to be due to air resistance effects or initial velocity, it isn't due to gravity.
You're right to an extent but at range it's more a combination of gravity and atmospheric resistance otherwise what goes up wouldn't come down. My assumption on that post was a straight shot UP versus your average downrange shot. Not being a physicist my lay-person assumptions of course can be off but hey, I just know what I see when I shoot and I'll readily admit that the HS physics class I took was back in '89 so.....
12313
Post by: Ouze
kronk wrote:At any point has the guy come forward with the drone in question to show the gunshot damage?
Here's a picture from a news story:
He's using carbon fiber props, which are strong and light but very brittle, and you'll note one prop is broken (which will take down a quadcopter). The shell bulge is probably from the crash.
221
Post by: Frazzled
So, yes, he knew exactly how high he was, and where he was. These are precise machines. The software app on the previous version was capable of wholly autonomous flight via a PC or IOS app you'd use to plan it beforehand, it would literally take off, fly your waypoints, take stills, whatever, and return back to wherever you told it to with a single button press and no other intervention.
Cool. not relevant without the actual evidence. Its just his word and he's motivated to lie. The defendant is motivated to lie too, but the presumption is with the defendant.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Again, I am rebutting an earlier factual deficiency. I am probably going to pull a moderator warning for repeating myself, apparently, so... whatever.
But, to go to your point, one guy has his word, the other guy has his word, physical evidence, and telemetry from the drone. He did not have a chance to even attempt to enter any of that into evidence, where a expert could have examined it for integrity. Maybe I haven't watched enough TV courtroom dramas, but my impression is that you supress evidence due to fruit of the poison tree after one party tries to enter it, and then it's ruled upon. None of that happened.
The police should have kept the SD card as well as the tablet or phone with the flight plan, as I've agreed several times.
10920
Post by: Goliath
agnosto wrote: Goliath wrote: agnosto wrote:Buckshot being way, way more possible than bird because the spread on bird at that distance is laughable and the shot being so much lighter that it would be affected by gravity so much more, I'm not sure that bird could make it 200 feet into the air; gravity's a b. Max range, not even lethal, for #8 is about 150yards with all shot having dropped at that point and most of it dropping before.
You can find examples on youtube of people shooting buck with some reasonable accuracy at 55-60 yards but the spread on 00 and 000 is 27 inches or more at that range, shooting level at a ground target. Shooting at an aerial target.... Buck's generally heavier than bird (which is designed to be shot into the air) so gravity would have a bigger effect and larger shot being more effected by drag to slow them. Maybe 200ft with buck but again, he'd have to be an insane shot or lucky because the spread would be huge.
I've highlighted some parts. That isn't how gravity works. The weight of the shot would have nothing to do with the effect gravity would have upon it. The gauge of the shot may have an effect on max height, but that's more likely to be due to air resistance effects or initial velocity, it isn't due to gravity.
You're right to an extent but at range it's more a combination of gravity and atmospheric resistance otherwise what goes up wouldn't come down. My assumption on that post was a straight shot UP versus your average downrange shot. Not being a physicist my lay-person assumptions of course can be off but hey, I just know what I see when I shoot and I'll readily admit that the HS physics class I took was back in '89 so.....
Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further  /physics
18698
Post by: kronk
Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.
I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.
Is it possible to edit that information, though?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:Again, I am rebutting an earlier factual deficiency. I am probably going to pull a moderator warning for repeating myself, apparently, so... whatever.
But, to go to your point, one guy has his word, the other guy has his word, physical evidence, and telemetry from the drone. He did not have a chance to even attempt to enter any of that into evidence, where a expert could have examined it for integrity. Maybe I haven't watched enough TV courtroom dramas, but my impression is that you supress evidence due to fruit of the poison tree after one party tries to enter it, and then it's ruled upon. None of that happened.
The police should have kept the SD card as well as the tablet or phone with the flight plan, as I've agreed several times.
No thats not how it works.
The defendant may testify but cannot be compelled to do so. The "victim" may testify and can be compelled to do so unless it violates his 5th A rights.
There is no telemetry from the drone and the there is no drone in the eyes of the court. That evidence has been very effectively tainted.
"Case dismissed for lack of evidence. Now get your Perv Drone out of here before I try out my new Browning Over Under you weird Pervy bastard."
Police should charge perv drone boy under the peeping tom statutes for good measure.
4402
Post by: CptJake
Goliath wrote: Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics
Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?
12313
Post by: Ouze
kronk wrote:Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.
I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.
Is it possible to edit that information, though?
It's a video file so.... not easily in that timeframe, but it's not impossible either. You'd have to have the right software and a very high skill level - I personally would not be able to do that, not in the 24 hours it took to produce it for the media. Additionally, if you edit the video in an application, it's likely going to change the metadata and make it clear it's been tampered with.
21196
Post by: agnosto
kronk wrote:Looks like one blade is missing form that rotor, but I'm not CSI enough to say that it was shot off by buckshot, bird shot, or .38 special.
I would have liked for the positioning and other information to have been submitted during the course of the trial.
Is it possible to edit that information, though?
Just as easy to say it broke off upon impact with the ground.
It is possible for a quad to stay aloft, with proper programming (no reason why this guy would have it). 
http://gizmodo.com/watch-this-intelligent-quadcopter-recover-after-losing-1478004249
12313
Post by: Ouze
Frazzled wrote:[No thats not how it works.
The defendant may testify but cannot be compelled to do so. The "victim" may testify and can be compelled to do so unless it violates his 5th A rights.
There is no telemetry from the drone and the there is no drone in the eyes of the court. That evidence has been very effectively tainted.
I see. I guess that's why no one has ever been convicted due in part to cell phone footage taken at a scene that wasn't under police control for the entire chain of evidence, from the scene to the courtroom.
Someone should let this guy know that the footage in question is totally tainted and inadmissible! it does not exist.
Come on.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 CptJake wrote: Goliath wrote: Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics
Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?
Possibly, but that would be independent of gravity. I'm not trying to say that they'll travel the same distance, more trying to educate on a misunderstanding of how gravity affects things. The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81m/s^2 for any object, so they will decelerate and start to fall at the same rate regardless of mass, given the same initial starting velocity. in this case however, it is highly likely that the initial starting velocity is not the same, due to the mass and size of the pellets affecting how much force the gunpowder can exert on them. (the larger the shot, the larger the force that can be exerted given the same pressure from the gunpowder) The larger the force, the faster the shot accelerates. Air resistance will also have an effect, with the larger balls being affected slightly more due to their surface area, but slightly less due to their mass ( F = ma, F is increasing due to surface area, but m has also increased, so a will stay largely constant) So yeah. The mass will have an effect on how far they will travel, but it isn't due to gravity, which is what I was originally correcting. (Sorry for taking this off on a tangent)
12313
Post by: Ouze
agnosto wrote:It is possible for a quad to stay aloft, with proper programming (no reason why this guy would have it).
It is technically possible, but there is no consumer quadcopter I am aware of (and certainly not the one in question) that has that capability.
Generally speaking the only commercially available fault tolerance is having more props - a hexacopter can lose one, and a quadcopter can lose 2 (depending which 2). In practice it's most likely that even in those 2 alternate situations losing an ESC, motor, or prop will lead to a crash with a consumer level drone.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Goliath wrote: CptJake wrote: Goliath wrote: Maybe, but the effect of gravity would be the same for both of them. If they left the barrel at the same speed, and with no air resistance, they would land at the same time. The difference between them will be due to a combination of barrel exit velocity and air resistance, which will likely have less of an effect on the larger one, resulting in it going further /physics
Wouldn't the difference in mass has an effect on how far the velocity carries it?
Possibly, but that would be independent of gravity. I'm not trying to say that they'll travel the same distance, more trying to educate on a misunderstanding of how gravity affects things.
The acceleration due to gravity is 9.81m/s^2 for any object, so they will decelerate and start to fall at the same rate regardless of mass, given the same initial starting velocity.
in this case however, it is highly likely that the initial starting velocity is not the same, due to the mass and size of the pellets affecting how much force the gunpowder can exert on them. (the larger the shot, the larger the force that can be exerted given the same pressure from the gunpowder) The larger the force, the faster the shot accelerates.
Air resistance will also have an effect, with the larger balls being affected slightly more due to their surface area, but slightly less due to their mass ( F = ma, F is increasing due to surface area, but m has also increased, so a will stay largely constant)
So yeah. The mass will have an effect on how far they will travel, but it isn't due to gravity, which is what I was originally correcting.
(Sorry for taking this off on a tangent)
Interesting but it all depends on the shot used, birdshot generally doesn't have the same "load" as buck. I wonder if the difference in load between the two shots makes a difference.
Another factor to consider in this case is if he was shooting straight up (or near to) to hit the drone, wind and other factors would come into play on the accuracy of the shot. With a solid slug, you can compensate for wind but bird or buckshot, not so much.
I don't have the science background to refute a 200ft shot (with buck but certainly not with bird) but it just doesn't ring true in my mind.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're completely correct. Codified criminal procedure is just a thing thats irrelevant because...reasons... This is basic stuff. The police had the evidence. They gave the evidence back to the victim. I won't quote the Texas statute that violates because its been a few years, but believe what you want. Ok put it another way, how is that admissible? There is no chain of custody of the drone. There is no protection the "alleged" drone has not been tampered with. Its out. The flight recording could potentially be used if there is enough support that it was valid and untampered with. However this isn't CSi and People Vs. Bin Laden. This is misdemeanor dick court. No one is going to F with this.
514
Post by: Orlanth
It may well be a desired verdict anyway. The US judiciary is not impartial, judges are directly party politicised, and thus politicised in general.
From the judges words the shooters testimony has been accepted as de facto truth right down to the claim that the drones past over his house low several times, and the case thrown out. Even though there was no firm evidence either way. This should tell us something about what society means to say about drones over inhabited areas.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.
39188
Post by: Bullockist
Obviously with shotguns, specifically Droneslayers' 200m ranged one
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
 Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.
I'm pretty sure under FAA regulations you can't fly within a certain distance above residential areas.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA! Automatically Appended Next Post: Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:I'm pretty sure under FAA regulations you can't fly within a certain distance above residential areas.
No such rule exists. You are required to maintain a minimum altitude of 500', up to 1000' above the highest point within a 2000' horizontal radius over "congested areas", except when landing or taking off. This rule is entirely about keeping the ability to safely handle an emergency without endangering people on the ground, and does not care at all about whether the area in question is residential. And of course these minimum altitudes are low enough to have no problem taking pictures of someone's back yard if you have a decent camera.
Also, this rule only applies to fixed-wing aircraft. Helicopters can fly as low as they want, as long as there is no hazard to persons or property on the surface. Which should tell you pretty clearly that this is about being able to glide to a safe emergency landing spot, not privacy issues.
Frazzled wrote:Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.
The FAA says no to this. Aircraft, including drones, are allowed to fly over residential areas.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Change it. Its just the FAA.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Frazzled wrote:
No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.
Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.
Then they would be regulated by the FAA, presumably. That's how it works in the UK.
I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?
90954
Post by: Torga_DW
Can you add gordon freeman to it?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Goliath wrote: Frazzled wrote:
No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.
Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?
Because the drone was hovering over his teenaged daughter who was sunbathing at the time.
21196
Post by: agnosto
Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.
Nope. The FAA considers them UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Looking into this, they apparently restrict UASs from operating in a commercial capacity and treat them as hobby aircraft. In fact they levied a $10,00 fine against a man who flew one to take pictures of a college campus for pay.
The Pirker Case
The one case that all eyes have been watching over the past few years and has been responsible for all the media frenzy of late.
In 2011, Raphael Pirker of Team Blacksheep (AKA "Trappy"), a Swiss citizen, was contracted by a publicity firm under contract with the University of Virginia to take aerial videos over and around the campus with his remote controlled powered fixed-wing Styrofoam glider (a Ritewing Zephyr). A couple years later, after viewing his flight online, the FAA levied a $10,000 fine claiming he had operated an UAS for commercial purposes, which the FAA does not permit under current regulations for UAVs/UAS in U.S. airspace.
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are inherently different from manned aircraft. Introducing UAS into the nation's airspace is challenging for both the FAA and aviation community, because the U.S. has the busiest, most complex airspace in the world. The FAA is taking an incremental approach to safe UAS integration.
What Can I Do with my Model Aircraft?
UAS come in a variety of shapes and sizes and serve diverse purposes. Regardless of size, the responsibility to fly safely applies equally to manned and unmanned aircraft operations. The FAA is partnering with several industry associations to promote safe and responsible use of unmanned aircraft. Read more about the Know Before You Fly educational campaign.
You can even go to the FAA website and download signs to post around your property notifying drone pilots that you're a no fly zone:
No Drone Zone
The FAA is leading a public outreach campaign to promote safe and responsible use of unmanned aircraft systems.
We are offering a digital toolkit with outreach materials to federal, state, and other partners to educate unmanned aircraft operators that flying in certain areas is prohibited. This toolkit includes No Drone Zone signage for any medium, including print and web.
http://www.faa.gov/uas/no_drone_zone/
The good news is that FAA regulations are available for public comment and will go through rulemaking this coming Spring. They're also considering forcing all drone owners to register their drones.
See people, this is what happens when people abuse something, the federal parents step in and force regulation down our throats.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Kilkrazy wrote: Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Which I think is a good thing. Drones should not have free reign like they currently do in most areas.
So how exactly do you propose to regulate them? Keep in mind that airspace in the US is under federal control, and the FAA frowns rather strongly upon lower-level governments saying "you can't fly here". And current FAA policy is that drones are no different from piloted aircraft, and the FAA gets authority over them.
Then they would be regulated by the FAA, presumably. That's how it works in the UK.
I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?
Could be a simple pressure system to determine the altitude, which wouldn't be 100% accurate but would be good enough most of the time.
37231
Post by: d-usa
It does have GPS, which is apparently able figure out where the sensor is physically located.
Or so I am told at least.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Goliath wrote: Frazzled wrote:
No no. 20mm cannon. Come on this DakkaDakka. When we say dakka we mean DAKKA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Put a tracker on. If they go over a residential area it gets reported to the PoPo, and they then get charged under local peeping tom ordnances.
Why do you keep on making this assumption that if there's a drone, they must obviously be trying to get photos of people whilst they're naked? You keep on insisting that the guy that flew the drone is a pervert, yet there's virtually no evidence for that statement. Why so quick to assume that anyone with a drone is a pervert?
Thats what parents do. look in the general direction of their kid? OMG PERVERT!!!!!! PArents think everyones pervy
63000
Post by: Peregrine
agnosto wrote:Nope. The FAA considers them UASs (Unmanned Aircraft Systems). Looking into this, they apparently restrict UASs from operating in a commercial capacity and treat them as hobby aircraft. In fact they levied a $10,00 fine against a man who flew one to take pictures of a college campus for pay.
Yes, I was generalizing a bit because I don't think most people here care much about the precise details of the regulations. The point I was trying to make is that the FAA treats them as any other aircraft for purposes of claiming authority over them. Obviously drones get their own regulations, just like single-engine and multi-engine piloted aircraft have different regulations.
You can even go to the FAA website and download signs to post around your property notifying drone pilots that you're a no fly zone:
No you can't. Those signs are intended for government or police use, to enforce existing FAA airspace regulations (national security areas, etc) of the same type that piloted aircraft have to deal with. There is no ability to declare the airspace above your property a no-fly zone for drones. And when airspace is made off-limits it is because of safety and/or national security issues, not a perceived right to be free of drones in "your" airspace.
Now, there are various proposals and services that claim to allow you to designate a no-fly zone over your property, but compliance with that request is entirely voluntary. Some drone manufacturers may voluntarily obey a database of "stay out" requests but that doesn't make it a law.
The good news is that FAA regulations are available for public comment and will go through rulemaking this coming Spring. They're also considering forcing all drone owners to register their drones.
See people, this is what happens when people abuse something, the federal parents step in and force regulation down our throats.
This is true, but the proposed regulations have very little to do with protecting the "right" to be naked in your yard without anyone seeing you and a lot to do with careless drone operators doing stupid things like flying into the approach path to major airports. It's a safe bet that the FAA will impose safety regulations (while at the same time opening up commercial drone use to companies that follow the safety regulations), but I would be very surprised if they care one bit about privacy issues.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a lot of precedent against doing so. It could theoretically happen, but you're a lot more likely to win the lottery.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.
And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".
You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.
10920
Post by: Goliath
 d-usa wrote:The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever. And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar". You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.
I don't think you realise that this thing was flying around, and there were children on the ground, so they were obviously in grave peril. This brave hero needed to protect them from the dangerous drone flying overhead. Why aren't you thinking of the children?  Also, question. Does the castle doctrine apply to drones? Seriously though, the fact that you (Frazzled) immediately leapt to the man being a pervert and a liar after finding out the shooter had kids nearby, kinda speaks towards your biases.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Kilkrazy wrote:I never knew these drones had such precise altimeters. Does it work by radar?
The Phantom 3 uses 3 different methods of positioning: a barometric altimeter, GPS/GLONASS, and within a certain distance of the ground - I want to say 30 feet - a visual + ultrasonic camera system in the belly. The latter is to allow flying indoors, when you can't get a reliable GPS lock and don't want to fly manually.
d-usa wrote:The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.
And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".
You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that everyone always screams after a mass shooting "we don't need new laws, enforce the ones we have". Well, here's a guy who fired a gun into the air in a residential neighborhood and the charges were dismissed despite not making a self-defense claim (which in his jurisdiction is the only legal defense). And yet, shrugs.
A drone flying over your property may be harassment, but that's a matter for the police. If you shoot down a drone, and it hits someone on the ground, or your falling ammunition hits someone, you've created a much greater public threat than the original problem. That's not OK.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Ouze wrote:...
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that everyone always screams after a mass shooting "we don't need new laws, enforce the ones we have". Well, here's a guy who fired a gun into the air in a residential neighborhood and the charges were dismissed despite not making a self-defense claim (which in his jurisdiction is the only legal defense). And yet, shrugs.
...
The reason for that is that most people don't want their neighbours flying drones over to spy on them, and they are pleased to see one get shot down. It's a case that if it went to jury trial might well have produced a perverse verdict.
The information about the altimeter systems is very interesting. Presumably the operator needs to calculate the barometric system for meteo, and the downwards looking ultrasonic is a backup to cope with the minor inaccuracy in GPS (flying over buildings and trees, and so on).
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kilkrazy wrote:Presumably the operator needs to calculate the barometric system for meteo
Probably not. Height above ground level is what a drone cares about, not its altitude above sea level. If you're flying a full-size plane you need to set the altimeter to the current pressure because things like runway elevations are given relative to sea level and you really don't want to be off by 100'. But a drone cares way more about buildings (which aren't mapped) than terrain elevation, and isn't going to stay in the air long enough for changing weather to make a meaningful change in altimeter readings. All you'd need for 99.9% of drone uses is to set the altimeter to zero when the drone is turned on and track the change in pressure from the reference level.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Goliath wrote: d-usa wrote:The amazing thing is that the only actual crime committed by anyone was the discharge of a firearm within city limits, which the man freely admitted to, despite a complete lack of any actual threat whatsoever.
And the response to that is "feth drones" and "the man is a pervert and a liar".
You want stupid gun laws? Because situations like that is how you get stupid gun laws.
I don't think you realise that this thing was flying around, and there were children on the ground, so they were obviously in grave peril. This brave hero needed to protect them from the dangerous drone flying overhead. Why aren't you thinking of the children?
Also, question. Does the castle doctrine apply to drones?
Seriously though, the fact that you (Frazzled) immediately leapt to the man being a pervert and a liar after finding out the shooter had kids nearby, kinda speaks towards your biases.
Considering thats WHAT THE FATHER SAID, who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone, the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim," his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred, and the judge threw it out, I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:
Considering thats WHAT THE FATHER SAID, who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone,
Which is the point he's making:
This is a "he said, he said"--but you keep immediately making mental gymnastics to support one side while labeling the other as a "pervert".
the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim,"
Ouze has pointed out that this particular model when it loses power can corrupt the footage. So did you ever think that maybe "Droneslayer" screwed up by pretending it was the Blitz and shooting the thing down?
his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred,
You don't get to shoot down news helicopters or passenger airlines flying over your house when your teenage daughter is sunbathing, why should you be able to shoot down a drone?
and the judge threw it out, I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.
And I still question why the hell the judge threw it out in this manner.
10920
Post by: Goliath
Ah, well if the father said it, it must be true; he's a father and would never lie about anything like the illegal discharge of a firearm, would he? who then used a short range weapon to take out the drone, the fact there is no video from the drone to support the "victim,"
It is indeed odd that there's no video evidence available from that electronic device that he just shot out of the air. You'd imagine, seeing as it was obviously a military grade P.E.R.V*-Cam, that it would have better bulletproofing. his teenage daughter was sunbathing where it occurred
Again, he-said she-said, regardless of which, if I'm walking around the garden naked, I don't suddenly have the right to shoot anything that flies above me. (If I were in America, that is) and the judge threw it out
Ah, so it's correct because the judge threw it out, and the judge threw it out because it was correct, then. I'd say I'm pretty justified Brit.
Not quite sure why you felt the need to refer to me as Brit, unless you were for some reason trying to imply that I'm not allowed to comment? Either way, that's still not a refutation of my point. This is a he-said she-said argument. The shooter has made statements implying that the droner is a pervert. You have then immediately taken his side, to the point that you don't need evidence to back up the shooter's claims any more, because the shooter is the one that made them. This is evidence of your own biases. Saying "The shooter said XX, You stupid british person" doesn't respond to my point that you're taking the shooter's side due to your own biases. "I think you might be agreeing with what the shooter said too readily, you might be slightly biased" "Well of course I am, the shooter said it" *Pilfering Exremely Racy Video
11188
Post by: ChainswordHeretic
Has anyone read the news articles about this?
Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.
Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 ChainswordHeretic wrote:Has anyone read the news articles about this?
Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.
Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.
Yes, let's focus on that.
Let's ignore the fact that Merideth claimed early on that he had been "harassed" by drones multiple times. Not that he had been harassed by this particular drone, by drones.
18698
Post by: kronk
I think it's safe to say that there are knuckleheads on both sides of the fence, and that the finger of shame should be wagged at both.
I'm leaning more towards two fingers of shame wagging at the discharge of firearms by the owner when not in clear danger.
And I don't trust the drone owner, either. A finger at thee, sir.
12313
Post by: Ouze
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Has anyone read the news articles about this?
Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.
Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.
Do you have a cite for this - the latter item specifically?
Also, how does a drone lift up a tarp and look under it? I feel like maybe I'm not understanding you there.
121
Post by: Relapse
Ouze wrote: ChainswordHeretic wrote:Has anyone read the news articles about this?
Defendant: I was only there to take pictures of my friends house.
Numerous witnesses that testified: It was flying below the tree lines through multiple yards, and was at one point seen flying less then ten feet of the ground looking under a tarp in someone's backyard. Also the defendant has video but he will only supply the footage two seconds before the drone was shot down.
Do you have a cite for this - the latter item specifically?
Also, how does a drone lift up a tarp and look under it? I feel like maybe I'm not understanding you there.
In the story he speaks of, the neighbors had on of those canopies opened over their back deck and the drone flew under it. A neighbor backed up the father's story.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy
221
Post by: Frazzled
I like this part:
It wasn't long before the drone's owners appeared.
"Four guys came over to confront me about it, and I happened to be armed, so that changed their minds," Merideth said.
"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?
18698
Post by: kronk
hotsauceman1 wrote:So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?
He never fired is gun at people.
If they were approaching him in his home in a threatening manner, he has the right to tell them to back off.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:So. Guy thinks he has the right to fire of his gun at people. And threaten them?
Please slow down and read it again.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
From my unxerstanding. Being on the lawn is not a reason to shoot someone.
18698
Post by: kronk
You need to add "...being approached in a threatening manner." 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
I would suggest you do the same.
So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?
The fact that he went out there with a "Glock on him" and told them that "If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting" is everything you realistically need to know about this guy:
He thinks he's friggin' Clint Eastwood dealing with a gang.
Also worth noting that this thread is basically repeating exactly what happened in the first one. Automatically Appended Next Post: kronk wrote:
You need to add "...being approached in a threatening manner."
I really don't want to be the one to do this, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...
You mean like Martin approached Zimmerman?
221
Post by: Frazzled
I would suggest you do the same.
So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?
They have no right to commit trespass, assault or battery because of it. With four men approaching, he was right to feel in fear of his life, and peacefully resolved that as an issue. I would have immediately called the PoPo though.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:I would suggest you do the same.
So what if they called him names? He shot an expensive piece of their property. How would you like it if someone started shooting at your stuff while you were in the process of using it?
They have no right to commit trespass, assault or battery because of it.
And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.
With four men approaching, he was right to feel in fear of his life, and peacefully resolved that as an issue.
Absolute horsecrap and you know it.
If he had tried to find the drone's owners while it was operating before resorting to "I'm gonna shoot it down!", then you could make the argument that he tried to "peacefully resolve" the situation.
But no. Redneck here opted to shoot first and then start flashing a gun around when the people whose property he damaged came after it.
I would have immediately called the PoPo though.
He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.
221
Post by: Frazzled
And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.
Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise. Droneslayer was called. He assessed the situation and and handed out the appropriate punishment. "I am DA LAWWWWW!"
18698
Post by: kronk
Kanluwen wrote: He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.
He did. This wasn't the first time they've have a problem with one another. IMHO, the police allowed this to escalate. A finger wag to them, too! "I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it."
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote:
And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.
Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.
Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".
People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.
121
Post by: Relapse
I agree with Kan. This thread is becoming a repeat of the other with neither side gong to give in, and both getting more pissed. The big difference is that the judge decided the case in the favor of the father.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
kronk wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
He should have called the police before shooting down the drone too, yet you're hailing him as a "hero" here.
He did. This wasn't the first time they've have a problem with one another. IMHO, the police allowed this to escalate. A finger wag to them, too!
Read the original article. Nothing states that it was the same drone, just that:
Here, Merideth, who operates a local trucking company, said that he had seen "two or three" different drones in his backyard previously over the last year and was disturbed by their presence. "What recourse do we have?" he asked.
"I feel good," Merideth said. "I feel vindicated. Police told me there was nothing they could do about it. Nobody would do anything about it, so I did something about it."
For giggles, here's a fun quote from Relapse's own original article:
And what would Merideth like to tell this errant drone operator when he meets him again?
"I would just like [him] to get some education on his toy and learn to respect the rights of the people," he said. "It's fine and dandy, and I think it's cool there's a camera on it, but just take it to a park or something—he's not a responsible drone owner."
Because shooting at someone else's property is "educated" and "responsible gun ownership".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:I agree with Kan. This thread is becoming a repeat of the other with neither side gong to give in, and both getting more pissed. The big difference is that the judge decided the case in the favor of the father.
So what if the judge "decided the case in the favor of the father"(dismissing the case, btw, is not the same as "deciding the case in the favor of the father")?
In all honesty, the fact that the judge decided something means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Until laws are actually on the books, this kind of scenario is going to keep repeating itself.
121
Post by: Relapse
Either way, I made my feelings about the case clear in the other thread and am not going to revisit the issue here.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:
And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.
Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.
Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".
People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.
But you don't think anyone should own firearms besides the police so thats nothing different.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Frazzled wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Frazzled wrote:
And he has no right to shoot at their property. That's the thing you just don't seem to grasp.
Evidently JUDGE DREDD er...Judge Bob thought otherwise.
Yeah, and that judge really should not have dismissed the case so quickly. All it's done is established a precedent that it's okay for morons like this guy to start shooting at drones "because it dun might take mah picture!".
People like him have absolutely no business owning firearms. None whatsoever.
But you don't think anyone should own firearms besides the police so thats nothing different.
You and I both know that's not true but keep pretending it is laddy!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.
I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
 Vaktathi wrote:I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.
I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.
Clearly because the police didn't take the SD card and drone right then and there! The dirty pervert tampered with the flight data, because otherwise he'd be labeled a dirty pervert on the internet for life!
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Vaktathi wrote:I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.
I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.
The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Grey Templar wrote: Vaktathi wrote:I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.
I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.
The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Did you ever think that the reason it was returned to the owner is that the police could have y'know...copied it over to the computer in the patrol car, and the data could be compared? Or that the data couldn't be recovered at the scene because of Merideth shooting it down?
All you have is the word of Merideth that the drone was "immediately returned to the owner"--which could mean anything. "Immediately" isn't a definitive measure of time. It could mean that the police picked the drone up and handed it to the guy with no delay, or that there was an actual delay while they copied over the SD card.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?
Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.
You wouldn't leave a murder suspect alone with the murder weapon and blood samples taken from the scene would you? This is no different.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?
Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.
Oh yeah? What language is it written in?
What numbers need to be changed?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?
Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.
Oh yeah? What language is it written in?
What numbers need to be changed?
I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
The point is, the data is tainted and 100% inadmissible.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.
What numbers need to be changed?
What language is the output in?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Grey Templar wrote:Given that the police have produced no copy of the original data, I would say they definitely didn't copy it. If such a thing existed we surely would have heard about it.
Would we really have? Given how fast this case got dismissed, I doubt it.
And the police might have had copies of the original, corrupted data--which could have been used as proof to show that the data WAS corrupted from the crash hence why they did not take the drone or SD card.
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:[Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
Would it? Would it be pretty easy, though?
Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.
You wouldn't leave a murder suspect alone with the murder weapon and blood samples taken from the scene would you? This is no different.
Um, yeah. It actually is. These two things are WILDLY different. Nice attempt at sensationalizing it though!
A murder weapon and blood samples from the scene could already have been tampered with to begin with, hence why that kind of stuff is given a rather exhaustive forensics examination.
In the case we have here? It's more like destroying the SD card from a voyeur's camera and then being upset that the police don't try to recover the data at the scene.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.
What numbers need to be changed?
What language is the output in?
Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?
I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.
I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.
What numbers need to be changed?
What language is the output in?
Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?
I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.
I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.
There is a significant difference between "It can be done easily and everyone knows how, don't you?" and "It can be done easily by someone who knows what they are doing".
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.
What numbers need to be changed?
What language is the output in?
Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?
I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.
I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.
I think you should admit you're talking out of your ass.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I never said everyone knows how to do it.
Just admit that the evidence is tainted already.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.
I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Kanluwen wrote:
It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.
I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.
It matters because thats why the evidence is tainted. It really is simplistic to do. Either you know how and do it yourself, or you find someone who does. Really, a short time on the internet or a phone call to your geek friend is all it would take. This would be very easy to argue in court.
Anyway, the firearms charge is a separate violation, it has nothing to do with the case the judge threw out(which was the drone owner suing the homeowner for breaking his toy). You can be mad at the firearms charge getting dismissed without trying to say the drone guy had any case whatsoever.
12313
Post by: Ouze
No, what you said was:
Grey Templar wrote:Its just changing a few numbers in the code. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of programming could do it. Its not like we are in the dark days when computers were first coming about. Programming skills aren't exactly uncommon, if you don't have the skills then you almost assuredly know someone who does.
You said you don't know how, and that's cool. That's a totally fair answer (although if you don't know how, it's difficult to know how you know how easy it is). You allowed for that maybe he didn't know either, and then you pointed out how totes easy it was to find someone who did know and could do that. Then you later said, doubling down, that you surely could find someone as well and it would take some time.
Well, I find that to be a totally acceptable answer! I will buy that.
The guy produced the flight path for the media the next day. How about tomorrow you post here precisely how this data could be falsified? 24 hours should, as you say, and then reiterate, be more than enough time to explain to us your assertion. After all, that's how long it took this guy.
What numbers had to be changed? It's just a few, you say. What language is this output in?
See you tomorrow, no doubt.
Alternately, another totally acceptable answer would be "I have no idea if the telemetry could be falsified or not". I'd totally take that answer too, although it's the opposite of what you originally said. I'm a reasonable guy, I understand sometimes people realize they were wrong and change their minds!
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Grey Templar wrote: Vaktathi wrote:I remain highly skeptical about this case. The drone flyer apparently produced flight data that showed the drone was not flying at the altitude the shooter claimed, but yet the case was dismissed based pretty much on his say-so claim.
I mean, if the drone legitimately was doing that, then I have no problem with him shooting it down, but when there's apparently flight data evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why the charges were simply dismissed on the defendants say-so.
The flight data is tainted because it was returned to the owner. Him producing the data proves nothing because of that. The data would only be admissible if the drone had never been given back. Such data would also be pretty easy to falsify and chalk up any irregularities to damage the drone sustained.
I'm not sure that's what I'd be worried about. Changing data like that is not like just editing a word document, and while theoretically possible, probably not particularly plausible. The bigger question would be if the data has been verified in some way as to coincide with the incident in question, as presenting data from another run would be far more plausible than actually editing the flight data. If it has been verified, then it's not so circumspect as to be called "worthless".
It's certainly no less trustworthy than the shooter's word.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?
As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote:Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?
As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.
Oh, OK! You're right - that is easy. Hell, I know numbers.
But... still. How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?
What software lets you change those numbers?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?
As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.
Oh, OK! How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?
What software lets you change those numbers?
Why does that freaking matter? Its possible, ergo the evidence is tainted.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Grey Templar wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
It was kind of implied by the fact that you kept harping on it as though it was some simplistic thing to do.
I don't know how to do it. You don't know how to do it. We could probably figure out how to do it, but what does it matter in this case? The judge dismissed it pretty much out of hand--which is downright irresponsible, as the firearms charges against this guy should NOT have been dismissed this quickly.
It matters because thats why the evidence is tainted.
Yeah, that's not how "evidence" actually works. If I submit something into evidence, I also have to produce to the court the process which the evidence was obtained by--and if it comes out that tampered evidence is brought in? That's a pretty hefty criminal charge.
Anyway, the firearms charge is a separate violation, it has nothing to do with the case the judge threw out(which was the drone owner suing the homeowner for breaking his toy). You can be mad at the firearms charge getting dismissed without trying to say the drone guy had any case whatsoever.
And you can understand that you might not know what you're talking about. Did you watch the video in the OP? Because clearly that was not a stable person being handcuffed. That is someone who has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER OWNING FIREARMS.
Nothing about this case suggests that Merideth was in the right except for people like Frazzled who are insistent that a drone flying over your property=perverts.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy ("freaking easy", and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.
You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote:Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.
You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.
Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified? All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either. We don't know if it was or not, but thats not important. What is important is that it could have been, and thats the end of story.
All that matters is that it could have been falsified, thats all that is necessary for evidence to be thrown out. Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.
Forgive me for using some expressive language, its called normal conversation. This isn't a formal debate. Stop being such a stick in the mud.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote:Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.
You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.
Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified?
All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either.
You keep doing this. You keep saying that it's likely that the data is falsified, and that it's a trivial matter, when you clearly know absolutely nothing about it whatsoever. I actually do know what I am talking about, so I will just tell you: The telemetry comes from a module that overlays it onto a video in real-time. It's not user accessible at all, and no programmer can do anything with it, because you need a video editing specialist. You literally don't know anything about it, at all, and yet here you are telling us not only is it easy it's likely.
I already stated a few pages back that it's possible to edit the video, theoretically, but it would be very difficult. I don't think I could do it, and I certainly could not do it within 24 hours, and I have a background in graphics editing. Furthermore, I also explained that doing such editing would alter the metadata of the file and make it clear it's been tampered with. So, it's possible, but possible in the way that I might hit the powerball possible.
This whole thread is like being in a gun thread where one person keeps ranting about high capacity magazine clips and how we need to get these fully automatic Assault Rifle 15's off the streets.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.
You're confusing two different issues here. When evidence is thrown out because of paperwork issues it's to protect constitutional rights, not concerns over tampering with the evidence.
Also, as has been pointed out already, merely having the possibility that evidence was tampered with does not automatically exclude it. For example, if a gun used in a murder is recovered from the suspect's house it's still valid evidence even though the suspect has had plenty of opportunity to tamper with it. To exclude the evidence from the drone the court should have to establish that it was tampered with, which is a lot more complicated than just saying "it wasn't in police custody the whole time".
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote:Is it possible, though? You keep saying not only is it possible, but that it's easy, and in fact, it probably was falsified. You say you don't know how, but explain that nearly everyone knows a programmer who can just change a few numbers to do so.
You should admit you don't know what you're talking about, and that you have no idea if it could be falsified or not.
Are you seriously counter-claiming that it could not possibly have been falsified?
All I have been claiming is that tampering is possible, and not a remote possibility either.
You keep doing this. You keep saying that it's likely that the data is falsified, and that it's a trivial matter, when you clearly know absolutely nothing about it whatsoever. I actually do know what I am talking about, so I will just tell you: The telemetry comes from a module that overlays it onto a video in real-time. It's not user accessible at all, and no programmer can do anything with it, because you need a video editing specialist. You literally don't know anything about it, at all, and yet here you are telling us not only is it easy it's likely.
I already stated a few pages back that it's possible to edit the video, theoretically, but it would be very difficult. I don't think I could do it, and I certainly could not do it within 24 hours, and I have a background in graphics editing. Furthermore, I also explained that doing such editing would alter the metadata of the file and make it clear it's been tampered with. So, it's possible, but possible in the way that I might hit the powerball possible.
This whole thread is like being in a gun thread where one person keeps ranting about fully automatic magazine clips and how we need to get these fully automatic Assault Rifle 15's off the streets.
So you freely admit it could be tampered with? Good. I accept your concession.
Fair point on it needing to be video editing and not programming. But my point still stands. It could be tampered with, ergo its tainted evidence.
Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Evidence can be thrown out of court because someone messed up the search warrant paperwork, which is a very minor issue compared to leaving evidence in the possession of someone who would have a vested interest in tampering with it.
You're confusing two different issues here. When evidence is thrown out because of paperwork issues it's to protect constitutional rights, not concerns over tampering with the evidence.
Also, as has been pointed out already, merely having the possibility that evidence was tampered with does not automatically exclude it. For example, if a gun used in a murder is recovered from the suspect's house it's still valid evidence even though the suspect has had plenty of opportunity to tamper with it. To exclude the evidence from the drone the court should have to establish that it was tampered with, which is a lot more complicated than just saying "it wasn't in police custody the whole time".
And the reason that Right exists to prevent evidence from being manufactured or tainted, by, say, law enforcement or some other party which has an interest in seeing someone wrongly convicted.
12313
Post by: Ouze
And another game of pigeon chess comes to a rousing conclusion.
good night, all.
123
Post by: Alpharius
I think we've determined that "could be tampered with" does not mean "absolutely was tampered with" nor does it mean "will be inadmissible in court".
So we should probably move on from that now...
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Edit: Nvm.
121
Post by: Relapse
Sorry to see the pissin' and fightin' like this between people I know have above average intelligence.
27151
Post by: streamdragon
edit: should probably finish reading a thread before I post
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I don't know. Thats not relevant. This dude with the drone could have found someone who knows the programming in the drone and altered it.
Wait, now I'm confused. What do you mean you don't know? You just explained how pedestrian such knowledge is - this isn't the dark age of computers, and all. Surely you know the answer, or if you don't, you know a programmer who can answer such trivial questions? You're saying so confidently the telemetry could be falsified by, well, almost anyone. It should be child's play for you to show us how - after all, you know it's just some numbers that need to be changed - or at lease ask a friend - which you say is super easy to find - who can answer those simple questions.
What numbers need to be changed?
What language is the output in?
Geeze, you just really won't let it go will you?
I do know people who know programming. I know they could easily do this. I don't know jack squat about computer coding though. I could ask my friends who do though, but we'd be here a while waiting for them to get back. I never said it could be falsified by everyone, I just said everyone at least would know someone who could.
I know nothing about computer languages, but all you need to change is the data values for the various telemetry. I'm not gonna go digging and find the exact coding changes for this exact model of drone. Its possible, you know this full well and are just being stubborn.
I think you should admit you're talking out of your ass.
My boy could do it, but it would take away from his time computing the perfect formula for alcohol consumption vs. cost. 
He would think it...pedestrian. Automatically Appended Next Post: Grey Templar wrote: Ouze wrote: Grey Templar wrote:Why does the the language of the output matter? Why are you focusing on that?
As for numbers, thats freaking easy. Altitude readings, speed, and time if necessary.
Oh, OK! How specifically do you do that? Do you hook the drone up to a laptop or something?
What software lets you change those numbers?
Why does that freaking matter? Its possible, ergo the evidence is tainted.
Which is why, the moment he was given the drone, the case was over.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I'm not sure why we are back to simply parroting back points already made and discussed as if none of that discussion or counterpoints even happened or been raised on this very page, but at this point it's pretty clear I can find better things to do with my time that repeat myself until I get a warning.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote:I'm not sure why we are back to simply parroting back points already made and discussed as if none of that discussion or counterpoints even happened or been raised on this very page, but at this point it's pretty clear I can find better things to do with my time that repeat myself until I get a warning.
Not getting why then hostility.
12313
Post by: Ouze
More like... sad resignation than hostility. I think I'm over hostility in this thread at least
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Here's a page to explain how you can access the apparently standard tlog format telemetry log files, and their derivative param files.
http://copter.ardupilot.com/wiki/common-mission-planner-telemetry-logs/
It says the param file is a simple csv format and can be read in a spreadsheet, so it wouldn't be difficult to modify it.
Here is a set of free utility software that apparently runs on C, C++ and Python environments and ican used for fiddling around with drone telemetry and control files.
http://qgroundcontrol.org/mavlink/start
It took me a couple of minutes on Google to find these links.
I don't know much about drones, but it looks rather interesting and I am tempted to get one.
12313
Post by: Ouze
That is an example of such a system, but it's not the system in question.
The one you are referencing is made by 3D Robotics and used in their Solo drones (among others). You can also build your own if you buy the components. It uses open source software so it's very accessible.
The drone in question is a Phantom 3, which uses a proprietary DJI flight computer (probably based on the DJI A2, but with support for the visual positioning system not available when the A2 was released). The flight computer in this system is not available separately and the software is closed source.
DJI does have an older system - Naza + A2 - which is available for if you build your own, but this is not what the Phantom 3 uses.
---
The Phantom 3 system creates 2 videos: one of which is stored on an sdcard on the Phantom itself, in the camera. With a sudden loss of power or damage, the output may be corrupted. It's sometimes possible to repair this file, and sometimes it is not.
While in flight, the Phantom streams a live video feedback over Lightbridge to a controller with a android or ios device (usually a tablet) running the DJI Go app. The telemetry from the drone is automatically overlaid onto the live video stream from a module on the drone; it just gets purely video data - there is no stream of telemetry that leaves the drone individually. The first person view video is saved on the android or ios tablet. What he showed the news was the video from the tablet he viewed the flight from.
If you are thinking of buying one, I would strongly recommend getting a Hubsan H107c, a Syma X5, or some other (inexpensive) quadcopter first as a trainer. I believe you said you flew RC helicopters somewhere, right? It's similar, but a little different. Also, you can fly the other 2 drones indoors when there is lousy weather, so it's useful even after you are used to how a larger drone handles.
70360
Post by: Col. Dash
Suffice to say, the shooter was justified. If it was as low as a shotgun could hit it effectively then it was good. If there are records substantiating that he had called the police before it only adds to this. That the drone owner and three friends confronted him in a threatening manner and almost trespassed to get to him then he had every right to make them aware he could defend himself. I am a big guy but if I have four guys coming at me, I am going to 'fear for my life' and open up on them too. Its called self defense and its every persons' right to use it. He warned them and they backed down, that was the correct use of force in that situation.
Also, while he did discharge a firearm inside city limits(which I find weird to be illegal coming from Florida) it was an effective weapon to use in this situation as unlike a bullet shooting rifle, a pellet will have very little force when it comes down. I have been hit duck hunting before from the guy across the pond(my dad in this case) and I actually had to think about what was raining on me. So yes he did do something minorly illegal, but he did choose the best tool for the job and the environment at hand, which is probably a mitigating factor on why he got off so lightly.
98523
Post by: LethalShade
Shotgun ? Haha, that's cute.  I want this in my backyard. + Little force or not, discharging a firearm inside a city should be outlawed.
70360
Post by: Col. Dash
Well it might be a little overkill, but by my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I think you should be allowed to have it. I don't think it has the range even to pop a high flying Predator but hey, whatever floats your boat. They used 88s for things other than shooting planes too.
|
|
